Commonwealth v. Welansky

Last updated

Commonwealth v. Welansky
Seal of Massachusetts.svg
Court Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Full case nameCommonwealth v. Barnett Welansky
DecidedJune 5, 1944 (1944-06-05)
Citations 316 Mass. 383
55 N.E.2d 902
Court membership
Judges sitting Fred Tarbell Field, Henry T. Lummus, Stanley Elroy Qua, Arthur Dolan, James Ronan, John Spaulding
Case opinions
Decision byLummus
Keywords

Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902 (1944), is a criminal case about the Cocoanut Grove fire that illustrates principles of negligent homicide and reckless homicide in the case where there is not an affirmative act, but a failure to act (omission) when there is a duty of care. [1]

Barnett Welansky was found guilty of wanton or reckless homicide in the Cocoanut Grove fire. [1] Welansky maintained and operated the Cocoanut Grove nightclub, knew or should have known that the club fire escapes were inadequate and in violation of building safety codes, and while Welansky was offsite, the building caught fire and hundreds could not escape and died. [1]

The court wrote:

To convict the defendant of manslaughter... It was enough to prove that death resulted from his wanton or reckless disregard of the safety of his patrons in the event of fire from any cause... Usually wanton or reckless conduct consists of an affirmative act... in disregard of probable harmful consequences to another. But whereas there is a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited to premises which the defendant controls, wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences to them or of their right of care. [2]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cocoanut Grove fire</span> 1942 nightclub fire in Boston, Massachusetts, US

The Cocoanut Grove fire was a nightclub fire which took place in Boston, Massachusetts, on November 28, 1942, and resulted in the deaths of 492 people. It is the deadliest nightclub fire in history and the third-deadliest single-building fire. The Cocoanut Grove was one of Boston's most popular nightspots, attracting many celebrity visitors. It was owned by Barnet "Barney" Welansky, who was closely connected to the Mafia and to Mayor Maurice J. Tobin. Fire regulations had been flouted: some exit doors had been locked to prevent unauthorized entry, and the elaborate palm tree décor contained flammable materials. The air-conditioning used flammable gas because of the wartime shortage of Freon.

Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.

In United States law, depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a "depraved indifference" to human life and where such acts result in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. In a depraved-heart murder, defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought. In some states, depraved-heart killings constitute second-degree murder, while in others, the act would be charged with "wanton murder", varying degrees of manslaughter, or third-degree murder.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

In United States constitutional law and criminal procedure, the good-faith exception is one of the limitations on the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

In United States law, the Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court abandoned the AguilarSpinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), in favor of a rule that evaluates the reliability of the information under the "totality of the circumstances." However, Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington have retained the Aguilar–Spinelli test, based on their own state constitutions.

<i>OGrady v Sparling</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

O'Grady v Sparling was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of overlapping federal and provincial laws. The Court held that there was no conflict between federal dangerous driving offences, which only prohibited "advertent" negligence and provincial careless driving offences, which included "inadvertent" negligence. The analysis used here is also known as the paramountcy doctrine.

In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea that, when accompanied by an actus reus, constitutes a crime.

Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person. There are several kinds of endangerment, each of which is a criminal act that can be prosecuted in a court. In some U.S. states, such as Florida, substantially similar language is used for the crime of culpable negligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reckless driving</span> Major moving traffic violation

In United States law, reckless driving is a major moving violation related to aggressive driving that generally consists of driving a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. It is usually a more serious offense than careless driving, improper driving, or driving without due care and attention, and is often punishable by fines, imprisonment, or the suspension or revocation of one's driver's license. In Commonwealth countries, the offense of dangerous driving applies.

Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

In the North American legal system and in US Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, willful violation or willful non-compliance is a violation of workplace rules and policies that occurs either deliberately or as a result of neglect.

<i>Criminal law of the United States</i>

The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Criminal Law - Cases and Matierials, 7th ed. 2012; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder
  2. Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316Mass.383, 55 N.E.2d 902(1944).